Buckeye Eric Posted September 3, 2004 Posted September 3, 2004 It seemed at first many were making him Bills starting running back far to quickly and now many seem to be giving up on him far to soon..... Yes, how fickle we fans are. WM has a roster spot, why should he be pounding himself needlessly. He was likley underachieving to save himself. Willams and Simonston have to make the team and show what they had and as a result were likely overachieving.
Typical TBD Guy Posted September 3, 2004 Posted September 3, 2004 It's interesting that the original poster thought WM was running in "slow motion." The thing I remembed the most from his senior college season was watching a Miami game with WM in it and trying to see what all the hype was about. I thought WM's running style looked slow in that game - even before the whole ugly injury - and yet he still was dominating everyone out there. My point is that he really does have deceptive speed out there on the field.
San-O Posted September 3, 2004 Posted September 3, 2004 Eric Steinbach could have started immediately at Guard, instead of wasting a year on Pucillo. Hindsight is always 20/20. Still, several of us at the stadium draft party were rooting for Steinbach, prior to the Willis selection. I'm just not into paying someone big $$ to watch him rehab 1-2 years to start his career. Especially a critical #1 pick. Nothing personal against Willis. The cap age dictates prudent moves to strengthen your club ASAP. You can only keep a good core together for a short time. The window of opportunity is much shorter than 10-15 years ago, when the cap didn't play into this and rosters had little yearly movement. Now the yearly roster turnover is extraordinary. Your paying this guy like he's one of your 8-12 core players...and he's still not 100 % recovered from his college injury. The issue of whether I expected him to be 100 % this year is moot. I hope we can use him correctly this season. Short yardage/goal line situations seem to be the ticket. If Henry goes down, I would hope the Coaching staff would explore the possibility of giving Williams some carries, instead of settling with Willis carrying 20 times for 60 yards. He isn't scaring anyone in the open field. Williams, on the other hand, could provide that big play threat. The Defense would have to respect that.. Flame away... 17139[/snapback] I agree 100 % and would also add, why draft a project at a position you have a Pro Bowler at when you are actually an average to below average team?
Frez Posted September 3, 2004 Posted September 3, 2004 It's interesting that the original poster thought WM was running in "slow motion." The thing I remembed the most from his senior college season was watching a Miami game with WM in it and trying to see what all the hype was about. I thought WM's running style looked slow in that game - even before the whole ugly injury - and yet he still was dominating everyone out there. My point is that he really does have deceptive speed out there on the field. 17343[/snapback] I think Willis is very good at following his blockers and waiting for that hole to open.
stuckincincy Posted September 3, 2004 Posted September 3, 2004 I think Willis is very good at following his blockers and waiting for that hole to open. 17348[/snapback] Yep. That's exactly what he did in college. If he sticks around for 5 years, converts 3rd and 2's, gets 10 red-zone TD's a year, and ends up with a 3.0 ave. and 500 yards per year, I for one would be extremely pleased. Fat stats are exciting but touchdowns and keeping drives alive mean more...
Realist Posted September 3, 2004 Posted September 3, 2004 Yep. That's exactly what he did in college. If he sticks around for 5 years, converts 3rd and 2's, gets 10 red-zone TD's a year, and ends up with a 3.0 ave. and 500 yards per year, I for one would be extremely pleased. Fat stats are exciting but touchdowns and keeping drives alive mean more... 17446[/snapback] Amen
stuckincincy Posted September 3, 2004 Posted September 3, 2004 Amen 17497[/snapback] Some RB's have that gift. The much-injured Ki-Jana Carter (he's something like a 10-year pro with about 1 1/2 years of playing time) is one of them. He has a very high TD/carry ratio - 20 TD's in 309 career carries - and is an excellent blocker. He's on the NO team these days. I recall a fellow from the old days - Roosevelt Leaks, who was money in the bank inside the five.
34-78-83 Posted September 3, 2004 Posted September 3, 2004 Some RB's have that gift. The much-injured Ki-Jana Carter (he's something like a 10-year pro with about 1 1/2 years of playing time) is one of them. He has a very high TD/carry ratio - 20 TD's in 309 career carries - and is an excelent blocker. He's on the NO team these days. I recall a fellow form the old days - Roosevelt Leaks, who was money in the bank inside the five. 17525[/snapback] Good ol'e Rosie! Boy could he drag a defender or two on his back or what?
Rico Posted September 3, 2004 Posted September 3, 2004 Sure would be nice this year to say "Willis McGahee - all he does is score TDs."
stuckincincy Posted September 3, 2004 Posted September 3, 2004 Sure would be nice this year to say"Willis McGahee - all he does is score TDs." 17549[/snapback] Sure would. He may never get his wheels back, but so far seems to have a quick eye for what's going on in front of him. I'd also be working on his pass-catching skills - remember Keith Byers?
JinVA Posted September 3, 2004 Posted September 3, 2004 Sure would be nice this year to say"Willis McGahee - all he does is score TDs." 17549[/snapback] wasn't it Keith Mckeller whose stats at one time was something like 10 rec. for 10yds. and 10 tds?
34-78-83 Posted September 3, 2004 Posted September 3, 2004 wasn't it Keith Mckeller whose stats at one time was something like 10 rec. for 10yds. and 10 tds? 17582[/snapback] That was Butch Rolle
JinVA Posted September 3, 2004 Posted September 3, 2004 That was Butch Rolle 17584[/snapback] Thats it, couldn't remember thanks
Fan in San Diego Posted September 3, 2004 Posted September 3, 2004 Mark, I think you ask an intriquing question here. If McGahee presence means we score TD's as opposed to FG's then he is absolutely worth the money. Especially when you consider that he will be taking the goal line pounding and helping to keep Henry fresher. I don't think McGahee's value will truly be known until we trade him. I'm bettting TD parlays Willis into a very low first round draft choice. Of course, that's contingent on Willis's return to form. 17215[/snapback] Neither RB will be traded. A team needs two stud RB's on the roster.
LabattBlue Posted September 3, 2004 Posted September 3, 2004 The 2002 Miami highlight video is available and I am tempted to buy it, to serve as a comparison of WM pre and post injury. To my knowledge this is the only video of WM available to the public. UoM 2002 Highlight DVD I thought WM looked good on his first couple of carries last night, but then seemed to be hesistant as to whether he should hit the hole as the play calls for or look for an alternative hole. This decision making seemed to be his biggest problem last night.
Mark VI Posted September 3, 2004 Author Posted September 3, 2004 A team needs two stud RB's on the roster. 17595[/snapback] Henry and who else ?
34-78-83 Posted September 3, 2004 Posted September 3, 2004 The 2002 Miami highlight video is available and I am tempted to buy it, to serve as a comparison of WM pre and post injury. To my knowledge this is the only video of WM available to the public. UoM 2002 Highlight DVD I thought WM looked good on his first couple of carries last night, but then seemed to be hesistant as to whether he should hit the hole as the play calls for or look for an alternative hole. This decision making seemed to be his biggest problem last night. 17690[/snapback] I saw it the same way labatt
Recommended Posts